Justin Madders MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Ms Vaz. Is it in order for a Member to move a new clause and then speak against it?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister seeks through the new clause and amendment to relitigate a number of the issues we debated last week, and he will not be surprised to hear that I will pick up on just one or two of his comments. He said that the 100-day deadline was unrealistic, but it was not, because we achieved it. All involved made a fantastic effort to ensure that we had a Bill published within that 100-day deadline. There have been some minor technical amendments to the Bill as we have moved along, and there are important issues of principle that we continue to engage and consult on. As the shadow Minister said, the new clause would require a consultation on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by part 4 of the Bill. I was not entirely clear whether he was referring just to the amendments to the 1992 Act by virtue of part 4 of this Bill or to the entire Act; in any event, there is some overlap between the two. We are pretty clear that the intention behind the new clause is to delay the Bill as much as possible. It would impinge on our desire and our manifesto commitment to improve workers’ rights and the ability of workers to have a meaningful voice through collective bargaining to secure pay and conditions. The shadow Minister will be aware that the Government have already undertaken a number of consultations, with four over the Christmas period, including one on modernising the framework for industrial relations, which would cover many of the provisions of the 1992 Act. As we move forward, get the Bill through Parliament and lay secondary legislation, there will be ongoing consultations and discussions about the provisions in the Bill, the application of codes of practice, and some of the matters that have been left for regulation. I do not believe that there is criticism about the level of consultation. We have engaged extensively with all stakeholders on a number of matters, and we will continue to do that almost weekly. The shadow Minister challenged me about how we can push the Bill forward, without there being questions as to whether it would lead to increased industrial action. The evidence we have is that legislation introduced by the Conservative Government led to increased industrial action in the last two years, and saw the highest levels of industrial action in decades. That shows that not putting industrial relations on a sensible footing and a collegiate basis is detrimental to them. The impact assessment for the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 made it clear it would worsen industrial relations, and so it proved. The shadow Minister talked about the burden and the red tape. A number of measures in the Bill will actually reduce burdens on employers’ organisations and trade unions in terms of notification and reporting requirements. He also challenged us on what the impact of some of this stuff will be. We can never say for sure that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 will have any impact, because it has never been used. One of the fundamental weaknesses with that legislation was that it was so unworkable and so damaging to industrial relations that no one ever thought it was a sensible idea to implement it. There were also powers in the Trade Union Act 2016 that were never used. Where powers were used—for example, on facility time and the requirement to report that in the public sector—the figures at the start of the period for reporting were exactly the same as they were at the end. So there was a lot of hot air and posturing in that previous legislation, and it was not conducive to good industrial relations. We are more than happy to see the back of it, but of course we will continue to consult and engage with all stakeholders as we move forward on implementing our clear manifesto commitments. On that note, I would oppose these proposals.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard two similar speeches from the Opposition that have raised a number of similar questions. The first question is: why do we need this? The whole suite of amendments and new clauses are in response to concerns that were rightly highlighted by all parties in condemning the P&O debacle and its underlying motives to undercut existing UK workers and employment laws by transferring people to lower terms and conditions. It is about stopping that race to the bottom. Members will recall the evidence from representatives of the sector in Committee sittings in November. They welcomed the provisions and were keen to see them introduced, because they wanted a level playing field. They did not want to be undercut by people who would seek to pay their staff the minimum necessary. It is about creating a level playing field and putting safeguards in place. I point out to Opposition Members that the conventions are already UK law. The measures in this group seek to ensure that when they are amended in future, there will be an opportunity to update our own laws to reflect any changes in the conventions. It was a fair question from the shadow Minister to ask what the conventions cover, and they obviously look at it important issues such as maximum hours of work, medical care, accommodation and access to food and drinking water. The maritime labour convention has been amended several times, with new requirements coming in only last month for seafarers to be provided with food and drinking water free of charge during their engagement, as well as provisions in relation to personal protective equipment and ensuring that they have access to social connectivity while at sea. The new measures are important to improve the working conditions of seafarers, and we currently do not have a mechanism to update our own laws to reflect them. Previously, when we were a member of the EU, the treaties were considered to be community treaties, which meant they were dealt with through regulations. We now need powers in our own legislation to ensure that we can keep up to date with developments in maritime law and protections. The shadow Minister asked how the powers might be used. Several amendments have been proposed to the convention, including to strengthen seafarers’ access to shore leave and improving protections against bullying and sexual harassment. We need to ensure that the powers in the legislation enable us to keep up with those important protections. Both Opposition Members mentioned the phrase “different provision for different purposes”. My understanding is that the power relates to the implementation of changes to the conventions rather than a broader power, as was suggested. The point about the negative procedure was noted. The drafting indicates that the initial implementation of regulations will be done by the affirmative procedure and thereafter changes to the law will be made by the negative procedure on the basis that those will be much more modest. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is welcome to table an amendment on Report if he thinks that the affirmative procedure should apply to all those issues. There was a question about furnishing records. If we are going to ensure compliance with international obligations, it is important that those subject to them can document their compliance with the regulations. There is therefore a power to ensure that those records are produced to demonstrate compliance. That is not a departure from the existing arrangements. There was a general question about the detention of ships. Existing regulations and implementation of the conventions allow for detention to continue or to be introduced where there is concern about compliance or about the health, safety and welfare of those on board the ships. I cannot give any examples of when that has been used, but I recall back in the depths of time a number of occasions when ships were stuck in port for a considerable time. I would have to check whether that was under this regulation, but I can send the hon. Member for Bridgwater further details. The powers that we seek to introduce are important to make sure that we keep up to date with the latest developments in international maritime law. It is important that there is a level playing field and that people doing this difficult and important work are protected. We must ensure that we never have a situation where employers such as P&O attempt a race to the bottom and we must ensure that standards are maintained across the board. On that basis, I commend these amendments to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. New clause 48 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 49 Information relating to the intelligence services, etc “(1) A power conferred by section 78 or 79 may not be exercised in relation to a person serving in an intelligence service unless the Secretary of State certifies that the condition in subsection (3) is met in relation to the power. (2) A power of entry conferred by this Part may not be exercised in relation to any premises (or any part of premises) used for the purposes of an intelligence service unless the Secretary of State certifies that the condition in subsection (3) is met in relation to the power. (3) The condition in this subsection is met in relation to a power if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the exercise of the power will not be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to— (a) national security, (b) the prevention or detection of serious crime, or (c) the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. (4) A certificate issued under this section in relation to a power may impose conditions on the exercise of the power. (5) Except as provided for by subsection (1), nothing in this Part requires any person to— (a) produce any document containing intelligence service information, or (b) provide any information that is intelligence service information. (6) For the purposes of this section— (a) ‘crime’ means conduct which— (i) constitutes a criminal offence, or (ii) is, or corresponds to, any conduct which, if it all took place in any one part of the United Kingdom, would constitute a criminal offence; (b) crime is ‘serious’ if— (i) the offence which is or would be constituted by the conduct is an offence for which the maximum sentence (in any part of the United Kingdom) is imprisonment for three years or more, or (ii) the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose; (c) ‘intelligence service information’ means information obtained directly or indirectly from, or that relates to, an intelligence service or a person acting on behalf of an intelligence service.”. —(Justin Madders.) This new clause would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to exercise enforcement powers in relation to people serving in the intelligence services unless it had been certified that there was no risk to national security, etc. It would also restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to require others to provide documents or information relating to the work of the intelligence services. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 50 Providing false information or documents: national security etc defence “(1) A person in relation to whom a certificate is issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section is not liable for the commission of an offence under section 103 (offence of providing false information or documents). (2) The Secretary of State may issue a certificate in relation to a person for the purposes of this section only if satisfied that it is necessary for the person to engage in conduct amounting to such an offence— (a) in the interests of national security, (b) for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime, or (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. (3) A certificate under this section may be revoked by the Secretary of State at any time. (4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b)— (a) ‘crime’ means conduct which— (i) constitutes a criminal offence, or (ii) is, or corresponds to, any conduct which, if it all took place in any one part of the United Kingdom, would constitute a criminal offence, and (b) crime is ‘serious’ if— (i) the offence which is or would be constituted by the conduct is an offence for which the maximum sentence (in any part of the United Kingdom) is imprisonment for three years or more, or (ii) the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.”. —(Justin Madders.) This new clause would provide a defence to the offence in Clause 103 of providing false information or documents in response to a requirement imposed by the Secretary of State under Part 5 of the Bill. The defence would apply if the Secretary of State certified that the conduct in question was necessary in the interests of national security or for certain other limited reasons. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 52 International agreements relating to maritime employment “(1) The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 is amended as follows. (2) After section 84 insert— ‘Part 3A International agreements relating to maritime employment 84A International agreements relating to maritime employment (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect to— (a) the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation, as it has effect from time to time; (b) the Work in Fishing Convention, adopted on 14 June 2007 by the International Labour Organisation, as it has effect from time to time. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement that has been ratified by the United Kingdom, so far as the agreement relates to maritime employment. (3) The power in subsection (2) to give effect to an agreement so far as it relates to maritime employment includes power to give effect to any amendments of the agreement that relate to maritime employment. (4) For the purposes of this section, a provision relates to maritime employment if it relates to the terms and conditions of employment or engagement, or working conditions, of masters or seamen. (5) Section 84B makes further provision with respect to the regulations that may be made under this section. 84B Regulations under section 84A: supplementary (1) In subsections (2) to (9) “regulations” means regulations under section 84A. (2) Regulations— (a) may make provision in terms of approvals given by the Secretary of State or another person and in terms of any document which the Secretary of State or that other person considers relevant; (b) may provide for the cancellation of an approval given in pursuance of the regulations and for the alteration of the terms of such an approval; (c) must provide for any approval in pursuance of the regulations to be given in writing and to specify the date on which it takes effect and the conditions (if any) on which it is given. (3) Regulations may make provision for— (a) the granting by the Secretary of State or another person of exemptions from specified provisions of the regulations for classes of case or individual cases, on such terms (if any) as the Secretary of State or that other person may specify, and (b) for the alteration or cancellation of such exemptions. (4) Regulations may make provision in respect of the checking or monitoring of compliance with any provision of the regulations, including (among other things) provision for— (a) the making and keeping of records and the keeping of documents; (b) the issue of certificates; (c) the furnishing of information. (5) Regulations may— (a) provide for the detention of a ship in respect of which a contravention of the regulations is suspected to have occurred; (b) apply section 284 with or without modifications in relation to such detentions. (6) Regulations may provide for the contravention of any provision of the regulations to be a criminal offence, but may not provide— (a) for an offence under the regulations to be punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment; (b) in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland— (i) for an offence under the regulations that is triable only summarily to be punishable by a fine exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; (ii) for an offence under the regulations that is triable summarily or on indictment to be punishable on summary conviction by a fine exceeding the statutory maximum; (c) for an offence under the regulations to be punishable on conviction on indictment with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. (7) Regulations may provide that, in specified cases, specified persons each commit an offence created by regulations in reliance on subsection (6). (8) Regulations may— (a) make different provision for different purposes; (b) provide for references in the regulations to any specified document to operate as references to that document as revised or re-issued from time to time; (c) provide for the delegation of functions exercisable by virtue of the regulations. (9) The power to make regulations includes power to make consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision. (10) The powers conferred by section 84A to make provision for the purpose of giving effect to an agreement or an amendment of an agreement include power to provide for the provision to come into force although the agreement or amendment has not come into force. (11) Nothing in this section is to be construed as restricting the generality of the powers conferred by section 84A. (12) A statutory instrument which— (a) contains (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 84A(2), and (b) is the first exercise of the power in respect of a particular agreement, may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. (13) A statutory instrument which— (a) contains regulations under section 84A(2), and (b) is a subsequent exercise of the power in respect of a particular agreement, is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’ (3) In section 306 (regulations etc), in subsection (2A)(a), after ‘section’ insert ‘84A(2),’.”— (Justin Madders.) This new clause inserts into the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to two named international maritime Conventions, and to future international agreements that relate to the employment of masters and seamen. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 2 Prison officers: inducements to withhold services “In section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline)— (a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a); (b) omit subsection (1A); (c) omit subsection (7).” —( Mr Bedford .) This new clause would repeal provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that prohibit inducing a prison officer to take (or continue to take) any industrial action. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by explaining once again why we believe the fair work agency is so important. As we know, the current landscape for employment rights is, as was actually recognised by the previous Government, fragmented and in need of reform. I believe there is widespread agreement about that. As a Committee, we heard evidence from Margaret Beels, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, that the current fragmentation creates a barrier to providing effective sector-wide enforcement. She noted that bringing powers together in the fair work agency would allow for better information sharing and a more flexible and adaptive approach to enforcement, enabling resources to be directed where they are most needed. Other witnesses agreed with that assessment; indeed, I recall that a huge range of witnesses at the evidence sessions spoke in favour of a single enforcement body. The CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co-operative or Co-op, the Women’s Budget Group and the Work Foundation all spoke in favour of a single enforcement body. The shadow Minister mentioned the impact assessment, but the Bill was in fact green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee. There is a commitment to keep the performance and cost of the fair work agency under review. There will be a review three years after implementation of the agency. As would be expected, merging different structures together is a complex task, so costings are still being developed at this stage. Nevertheless, securing value for money is clearly a key consideration in that process. The shadow Minister made an interesting point about behavioural change. Clearly, such change is very difficult to model in, but we hope that by establishing the fair work agency we will send a very clear signal that we expect employers to comply with the law, that the best standards should be adhered to, and that the race to the bottom should end. As a result of all that, we will see far better employment practices across the country. The fair work agency will be part of the Department for Business and Trade, so its costs will be in the Department’s accounts, which Parliament can scrutinise in the normal way. Once the agency is fully established, it will produce its own accounts as part of its reports, and those accounts will be consolidated into the Department’s annual accounts, which, of course, will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Consequently, I do not believe that new clause 22 would add anything to the multiple channels that are already available for parliamentarians to establish and identify the costs and benefits of the agency.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This group concerns the mandatory seafarers’ charter and amendments to international maritime convention measures. New schedule 3, and consequential amendments new clause 48 and Government amendments 206 to 208, deliver on our commitment to introduce a legally binding seafarers’ charter. The actions of P&O Ferries in 2022, when it sacked almost 800 seafarers in order to replace them with agency workers on much worse terms and conditions, highlighted the lack of protections for those working on the frequent international services that keep our country moving. We are expanding the scope of the Seafarers Wages Act 2023, which will become the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023. The Act currently makes payment of the national minimum wage equivalent for work in UK waters a condition of port access for international services that call at a UK port at least 120 times a year. It does that by requiring harbour authorities to request declarations from operators to confirm that they are paying the national minimum wage equivalent, or they will impose surcharges each time a vessel enters the port. Non-payment of surcharges will result in access to the port being refused. The new schedule introduces provisions that, once the necessary regulations have been made, will require harbour authorities to also request safe working declarations and remuneration declarations from operators in scope. Operators will be required to confirm that they are meeting the requirements of those declarations, which will be set out in regulations. We will consult on the requirements and the services they will apply to in due course. Safe working regulations can specify conditions relating to working patterns and rest requirements, including maximum periods of work and minimum periods of rest. They can also require operators to produce fatigue management plans, and make provision relating to safety training of seafarers. Remuneration regulations may specify requirements relating to the remuneration of seafarers, whether in UK waters or outside them. Where we are able to make agreements with other countries about pay on routes between us and them, this provision will allow us to enforce those agreements. Operators that provide false or misleading declarations, or act inconsistently with declarations, will be guilty of an offence under the Seafarers Wages Act. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be responsible for enforcing those offences, as it is for the existing provisions of the Act. The new schedule represents a proportionate and necessary approach to ensuring that the seafarers who serve our country are not subject to dangerous or unfair working conditions. It will level the playing field by setting an appropriate minimum standard for seafarers, which will ensure that good employers are not undercut by those willing to exploit their workers. I turn to new clause 52. The UK has a proud and long-standing reputation as a maritime nation, and is a leader on the global stage in matters of international maritime employment law. To maintain that position, it is crucial that we are able to keep pace with the international conventions that we have ratified and meet our future obligations. The new clause will fix a powers gap that was left following Brexit. It will give us the powers to make regulations under the negative procedure giving effect to the maritime labour convention and the work in fishing convention, and to make regulations giving effect to any other international agreements ratified in the UK relating to maritime employment. The first time that regulations are made in relation to a particular agreement, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and subsequent regulations relating to that agreement will be subject to the negative procedure. The new clause allows for regulations to make the necessary provisions to give effect to the conventions in question. For example, it allows for regulations to make provision relating to monitoring compliance, and to criminal offences and detention of ships for contravention of provisions in the regulations. It may not represent any changes in Government policy, but it will allow us to uphold our existing obligations and any future obligations under conventions that the UK may choose to ratify.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to say this, but the shadow Minister seemed almost proud of that fact.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  There are approximately 170,000 words in the “Oxford English Dictionary”, but I am struggling to find one to adequately encapsulate the speech by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. It is clearly a novel approach to a Bill Committee to move an amendment and then speak against it. I do not think anything he said would have persuaded me the other way had I not already been minded to oppose the new clauses, although he did his best. It is important that we put on the record our appreciation for the work of prison officers. They work in difficult environments every day, dealing with very challenging people, and we recognise that they are critical to keeping the public safe. Under the current legislation, prison officers are prevented from taking industrial action, and their pay is governed by the independent Prison Service Pay Review Body, which acts as a compensatory mechanism for that restriction. Indeed, one of the first actions of this Government was to accept the pay review body recommendations for 2024-25, and we delivered on our commitment to launch the 2025-26 pay review body process in September, three months earlier than the previous Government did. Our written evidence to the body for the next pay round was published on 10 December, paving the way for a timely pay round. We are well positioned for that process to conclude. We need to ensure that everyone who works in a prison has the right to decent conditions and a fair reward for their hard work. The Government are committed to achieving that, but I believe that we can do so without the need for legislative change. Prison officers are essential to maintaining order and control in prisons. A withdrawal of their services, as we have heard, even if only partial, would create a risk to order and to the life and limb of individuals. There are limited contingency plans in place to deal with strike action and, during such incidents, reliance on a narrow pool of operational managers and support from the police would create risks. I am sure that Members do not need that spelling out. This would also result in significant disruption to the operation of the courts and the police, representing a significant risk to public safety. I know that the POA is very keen, understandably, to have this proposal enacted. Its representatives have met the Justice Secretary recently, and they continue to do so, and I have spoken to them. I understand their view, but we cannot agree to this at this point. I do not know whether the amendment will be pushed to a vote—I suspect that it will not be, from what the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire said—but we will not support it.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for West Suffolk for raising this matter, because I take it extremely seriously. I am pleased to see that he and the shadow Minister do too. It has clearly become more and more of an issue in recent years. It is based on exploitation of vulnerable individuals. It is about a race to the bottom and about a labour market that is, as Matthew Taylor identified all those years ago, fundamentally not working. That said, we are not able to accept the new clause, and I will explain why. That does not mean I am not sympathetic to it. We have been doing a number of things. I recently met the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, and the Home Office to discuss this matter. In fact, we have now met the Home Office twice on this issue, because we are aware that there are concerns about how substitution clauses in the gig economy, in particular, are operating. I have recently written to Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber, because their substitution clauses—certainly some of them—do not appear to have any cognisance of whether the substitute has the right to work in the UK. I would not say that applies to all gig economy companies—I could say “employers”, but of course they would say that they are not employers. They do not all take that view of substitution, but it is clear from what we have heard that this is not being policed properly at the moment, so we want these companies to step up and make sure that those who are working for them are entitled to do so legally, that they know who they are and that they are who they say they are, and that all the checks that we would expect any responsible employer to make have been made. The challenge is that there is a broad definition of self-employment and substitution clauses are used far more widely than the gig economy. There have been cases going back decades on whether someone has employment rights, and that often centres on the use of a substitution clause. In recent years, that has been turbocharged by gig economy companies to create this new network of workers, but there would be a number of unintended consequences in the wider economy if we accepted the new clause, because of its broadness. It would make people such as IT contractors or plumbers—indeed, there was a case involving a gym instructor who had a substitution clause—unable to provide a substitute. There are all sorts of jobs out there—many thousands and possibly millions—where substitution clauses are used perfectly well, and unfortunately, because of the way the new clause is drafted, it would mean that none of those people could continue to use them. Clearly, we would not want to see that, because it is an important part of self-employment for someone to be able to provide a substitute for their services if they are unavailable, but we recognise that the law needs modernising in this area. We have committed to consulting on a simpler, two-part framework for employment status. We think that is really important to drive out the many abuses that we have heard about. I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk that it should not be left to the courts to determine whether someone has particular rights. That should be set down by Parliament, and it should be clear and make sure that there is no room for loopholes. It is important that we get that right. I think that the new clause would create a whole range of unintended consequences and exclude people from carrying out their legitimate business, but I assure hon. Members that I take this matter very seriously and I am doing what I can, before we have the review, to make sure that those companies that are employing people in this way are doing so safely and responsibly.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These clauses set out a single set of investigatory and enforcement powers that inspectors will have to carry out their job of enforcing the list of labour market legislation in part 1 of schedule 4. Clause 111 defines what constitutes non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation. It provides a clear definition of non-compliance, ensuring consistency and transparency in enforcement actions. It therefore underpins the enforcement purposes of the Bill. Clause 112 defines the key terms used throughout part 5 of the Bill relating to the governance of the fair work agency, including the concepts of the advisory board, the enforcement function and the role of an enforcement officer under clauses 75, 73 and 72, respectively. Other key terms defined by the clause include labour market enforcement undertakings and orders, “non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation” and “labour market offence”. It does not introduce any additional policy, but it is a necessary and normal part of the Bill to ensure that it is functional.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz, and I wish you a happy new year too. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will not detain the Committee long, as I think the support from Opposition Members for the amendment is clear. Before lunch, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked how this measure will make things more effective. I refer him to the evidence given by a number of stakeholders, including the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, who explained that the current fragmented system makes it difficult to ensure that intelligence is shared correctly. The hon. Member for Bridgwater used the word “clandestine”. A lot of the people engaged in labour market abuses are operating under the radar, and therefore anything we can do to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are combined has to be a good thing, so that these abuses are stamped out. Amendment 204 agreed to. Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 185, in schedule 6, page 141, line 33, leave out from “2025)” to end of line 2 on page 142 and insert “acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;”;”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 186.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Hopefully, I can put Opposition Members’ minds at rest about the need for the amendment. It is about simplifying the legislative framework. Section 19A(10A) of the 1996 Act is about disclosure of settlement terms to enforcement officers who are appointed under section 37M of that Act. As that is now being repealed by and superseded by the provisions in this Bill, particularly clauses 98 and 99, that provision is no longer required in the 1996 Act. That is why it is being removed; the current arrangements remain in place, but they will all be in one place, in this Bill. We hope that will provide clarity and certainty for those who wish to avail themselves of the rights and obligations under this legislation. Amendment 184 agreed to .

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 201, in schedule 7, page 148, line 16, at end insert— “8A “(1) This paragraph applies to information which— (a) was obtained in the course of— (i) exercising the powers conferred by section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”), or (ii) exercising powers by virtue of section 26(1) of the Immigration Act 2016, and (b) immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6, is held by an officer acting for the purposes of the 1973 Act. (2) On the coming into force of that paragraph, information to which this paragraph applies vests in the Secretary of State.” See the explanatory statement for Amendment 202.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, if there is not agreement, the provisions in clauses 78, 79 and 83, which we debated last week, will come into play. On the existing framework, the powers that we have set out are already in use. The Bill will make them available to all enforcement officers. They will be used only by people who have sufficient training and oversight within the organisation. I was asked whether the code of practice will be updated. We are engaging with the Home Office on that. That is something that needs to be considered, given that the agency is being formed. The hon. Member for West Suffolk was right to ask about proportionality. We do not see that there will be any change in how the system works on an operational basis as a result of these amendments. They really are about transposing the existing powers and safeguards into the Bill. Amendment 190 agreed to. Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other legislation and will ensure consistency with the provisions introduced by the Bill. It will also ensure that our legislative framework is cohesive and functional. The amendments will make essential technical adjustments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to reflect the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers, as defined in part 5 of the Bill. They will update references, revise definitions and ensure consistency between this Bill and existing legislation. The amendments will avoid confusion and ensure that our statutory framework functions effectively. I commend these minor technical amendments to the Committee.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater asked me the “how long is a piece of string?” question—that is, how often the powers will be used. The best thing I can do is to come back to both of them with how often they have been used in recent times because, of course, there is an existing power with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. I was asked various questions about the use of powers, oversight and so on. Clauses 78 and 79 set out the powers that officers have. As we have discussed, we expect that these things will be the culmination of an ongoing dialogue between a particular business and the fair work agency. When there is non-compliance, these powers can be used as a last resort. Clause 83 sets out some of the oversight provisions.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 193, schedule 7, page 147, line 2, at end insert— “( ) an officer acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996;” The effect of this amendment is that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to the Bill would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards). The functions of such officers are being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, leave out “and (4)” and insert “, (4), (8) and (9)”. This amendment, and amendments 105 and 106, make further minor amendments of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers by enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It seems we have a little double act developing on the Opposition Front Bench. It reminds me a little bit of Waldorf and Statler, without the puns. Both the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Bridgwater sought similar and important assurances that the work of the agencies would be able to be carried out effectively during this period of transition. I note what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire mentioned about the Mid Buckinghamshire reorganisation.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 190, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert— “Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 92B In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (extraction of information from electronic devices: authorised persons in relation to all purposes within section 37), after the entry relating to section 15 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 insert— ‘A person who is an enforcement officer for the purposes of Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.’” This amendment would authorise enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations. Government amendment 190 is another technical amendment to ensure continuity and effectiveness of the enforcement power under section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Bill provides the building blocks for us to set up the fair work agency, which involves transferring enforcement functions that are currently split between multiple bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. The GLAA office currently exercises its power across the UK under section 37 of the 2022 Act. Without this amendment, enforcement officers in England, Wales and Scotland would not have access to critical investigatory powers under that Act. Only officers enforcing the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 in Northern Ireland would retain those powers, creating an unjustifiable enforcement gap. Investigations increasingly rely on access to electronic data, such as payroll records and communication logs. Excluding fair work agency officers from these powers would severely hinder their ability to obtain critical information, leaving them ill-equipped to tackle non-compliance and labour exploitation effectively. The amendment ensures that enforcement powers remain consistent across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, aligning with the policy aim of the fair work agency to deliver robust and uniform enforcement. Fair work agency officers would exercise the section 37 power in relation to labour market offences. That expands the scope of the power, as currently the power is exercised by GLAA officers only in connection with enforcement of the 2004 Act. This amendment would mean that the power is used by fair work agency officers to enforce the broader range of legislation under their remit, which means that the power could be exercised in relation to any labour market offence, instead of just offences under the 2004 Act. That will prevent any disparity in enforcement capabilities that could undermine efforts to protect vulnerable workers and uphold compliance. This amendment corrects a minor technical oversight during the drafting process, ensuring that the legislation accurately reflects operational needs. It aligns with the overarching policy intention to ensure that there is no reduction in enforcement capability as enforcement bodies transfer into the fair work agency, and it directly addresses concerns and strengthens the Bill’s overall effectiveness. In conclusion, this amendment is essential to prevent enforcement gaps, ensure parity across jurisdictions, and equip enforcement officers with the tools that they need to combat exploitation in the modern economy.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The schedule sets out transitional and savings provisions. It ensures a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions introduced by the Bill. That is of course important because it makes our legislative framework cohesive and functional. Government amendment 191 is a necessary technical provision to ensure that the transition of enforcement responsibilities under part 5 of the Bill is well ordered. By clarifying that actions taken not just “by” but “in relation” to enforcement officers will continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State, we are safeguarding a continuity in enforcement processes and ensuring no disruption to ongoing cases or decisions, which I am sure Members will be relieved to hear. Government amendment 192 makes a consequential change to align with Government amendment 191, and Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes in schedule 7. They do not affect the substance of the Bill, but they improve its clarity and accuracy. I hope that hon. Members will support what I imagine are uncontroversial amendments and support achieving the aim of ensuring continuity and cohesiveness as we move forward. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That was quite a lengthy debate for a technical amendment. This amendment to schedule 6 will ensure continuity of function, which was one of the main points that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater made. We are alive to their concern that there is a hole through which provisions can fall: there are a number of amendments to make sure that there is continuity of legal force and in the ability to carry out the functions of the predecessor authorities. Both hon. Members asked about redundancies. It is premature to talk about operational matters of that nature. The impact assessment is being carried out on the basis of the existing budgets of the relevant agencies. No reduction in staff members is anticipated, but as we move forward, efficiencies and duplications may become apparent when the agencies are merged, which may lead to other changes to the way in which matters are carried out, and those will clearly be dealt with. There was a concern that the reorganisation could lead to disruption, which is certainly not our intention. We expect the agencies to be able to continue to carry out existing investigations—indeed, many of the amendments are being made with that in mind to ensure that continuity is preserved. I remind Opposition Members that the purpose of the fair work agency is to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are pooled so that we can be more effective in our labour market abuse enforcement mechanisms. That has been widely supported across the entire group of stakeholders. In terms of oversight, there will be an advisory board, reports and strategies and the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament for the work of the fair work agency. We will no doubt return to that on a number of occasions as the detail is fleshed out. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendment 183 agreed to . Amendments made: 102, in schedule 6, page 137, line 13, at end insert— “(3A) In the italic heading before paragraph 10, omit “of Authority”.” This amendment makes a minor drafting correction. Amendment 103, in schedule 6, page 137, line 15, leave out “the heading and”.— (Justin Madders.) This is consequential on amendment 102.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 184, in schedule 6, page 141, line 7, at end insert— “Employment Tribunals Act 1996 70A In section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (conciliation: recovery of sums payable under settlements), omit subsection (10A).” This amendment provides for a minor consequential amendment relating to Part 5 of the Bill.